Comrades! I shall have little to say in my concluding remarks, although, unfortunately, I shall have to object not so much to comrade Yakovlev, who spoke before me, as to comrades Bubnov and Drobnis, who spoke after me. Despite this, I must make only a few specific observations.

Regarding comrade Rakovsky's speech, I must say that when he declared that Soviet estates must be the foundation of our communist construction, this is incorrect. We absolutely cannot approach the matter in this way. We must acknowledge that we should allocate only a very small portion of the cultivated estates to Soviet estates; otherwise we shall not secure a bloc with the peasantry, and we need this bloc. When some comrades stated that I recommend a bloc with the borotbists{125}, this is a misunderstanding. I compared here the policy that must be conducted toward the borotbists with the policy we conducted toward the right Socialist-Revolutionaries. Then we were accused—in the first week after October, among other occasions at peasant congresses—of the fact that having seized power, we did not wish to utilize the forces of the peasants. I said: we have taken your entire program in order to utilize the forces of the peasants, we desire this, but we do not desire a bloc with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Therefore, comrade Manuilsky is in an extraordinarily strange delusion, just as comrades Drobnis and Bubnov are, when they claim that I recommend a bloc with the borotbists. My view consists precisely in pointing out that we need a bloc with the peasantry of Ukraine, and in order for this bloc to be realized, we must conduct a polemic with the borotbists not in the way they are conducting it. All those who spoke about the national question—comrades Drobnis and Bubnov said this, and many others—in their criticism of our CC resolution demonstrated that they manifest precisely that same samostiynost' [self-directed independence] with which we reproached the Kievans. Comrade Manuilsky is in an extraordinary delusion when he thinks that we reproached samostiynost' in the national sense, in the sense of Ukraine's independence. We reproached samostiynost' in the sense of unwillingness to take into account Moscow's views, the views of the Central Committee located in Moscow. This word, which was used in jest, had an entirely different meaning.

Now the question stands thus: do we need a bloc with the Ukrainian peasantry, do we need the same policy that was necessary at the end of 1917 and during many months of 1918? I assert that we do, and therefore we must give over the greater part of the Soviet estates for actual division. We need a struggle against large estates, we need a struggle against petty-bourgeois prejudices, we need a struggle against partisanship. The borotbists speak much about the national question, but do not speak about partisanship. We must demand that the borotbists dissolve the teachers' union, even if it be in the Ukrainian language, even with a Ukrainian state seal, but in the name of those same principles of proletarian communist policy in the name of which we dissolved our VUS, the All-Russian Teachers' Union, for it did not uphold the principles of the proletarian dictatorship but defended the interests and conducted the policy of the petty bourgeoisie.